DUmmies Outraged Over No "Torture" Trials
Please! No more food! Stop giving me second helpings of orange glaze chicken and rice pilaf! HELP! They are freezing me to death with 68 degree air conditioning!!! EEEEEK!!! They put a flea in my cell! KEEP THAT KILLER CATERPILLAR OUTTA HERE!!! Yeah, that is what is laughably supposed to pass for "torture." Oh, and how many Gitmo prisoners drowned from waterboarding? None which is in stark contrast to how many prisoners of Islamic militants died from having their heads sawed off. Of course, we hear not a peep of protest about the latter situation. Instead the DUmmies are outraged over the announced lack of prosecution for what laughably passes for "torture" as you can see in this THREAD titled, "More than Nuremberg: Update: Rahm Says 'No Prosecutions'." So let us now watch the DUmmies screech over non-existent "torture" in Bolshevik Red while the commentary of your humble correspondent, wondering if being forced to listen to Meghan McCain's annoying Valley Girl voice would constitute torture, is in the [brackets]:
Rahm is probably complicit. There are Dems who could go down
for this, IMO. Too bad politics still gets bigger play than justice in this country.
It's pathetic.
[Or maybe Rahm realizes how absurd it is to prosecute for torture by caterpillar.]
I will NEVER understand how any Jewish descendant, such as Rahm Emanuel, can turn away from this Gitmo torture evidence.
[We all remember how the Nazis brutally overfed the concentration camp prisoners with orange glaze chicken and subjected them mercilessly to air conditioning.]
I have given up on the democrats now. My vote is wasted when it goes to promote policies like these - or the Wall Street bailout, for that matter.
[Does that mean you will show up at the Tea Party protests?]
Don't you get a bit tired of being portrayed as the loony left as a way of marginalizing us?
[When you get all upset about torture by caterpillar, it's not really hard to marginalize you.]
Anyone who thinks that excusing torture is ok is not living in a reality-based world.
[So no prosecution of Gitmo guard Big Bob for refusing to fluff a prisoner's pillow?]
Obama is worse than Bush. Bush promised us nothing. Obama did.
[Gitmo guard Big Bob has a very special meat sandwich for you to chew on while pondering that thought.]
I am biting my tongue, admonishing my fingers, and struggling with my mouth
[Hey, it's better than biting down on Big Bob's very special sandwich...unless you happen to be Ben Burch.]
the dog book coming to a book store soon.. it was ready to be published before the dog was bought or delivered!!..and they held it back until the Obama's got the dog and they had the name..it was ready for publication..yes that is a fact....only thing missing was the dog and the name of the dog..just so you know this is the next distraction coming soon..to a Tv and bookstore near you!!
[I wanted Obama to name the dog "Big Bob."]
I just watched the video..My Impression...towards the end is the best part where Rahm flubs an answer about "President Bush ...uh...something wanted these memo's released...and uh..onto...
It's before the part where Rahm says that there needs to be a time for "Reflection over Torture (and I assume other crimes of the Bushies). I wanted to yell at the VIDEO....F*CK IT! RAHM...YOU KNOW THAT ACTIVISTS AND DEMS in YOUR PARTY HAVE PASSED THE POINT OF REFLECTION! GET A LIFE, RAHM! You are speaking to Americans as if they are DEAF, and BEEN ABSENT...yet you are where you are because of the ACTIVISTS WHO PUT YOUR PRESIDENT IN THERE!
[Acid reflux?]
Well...if I was a DIVA ...I'd throw you a kiss! sadly ..I'm just a serious wonker... :-(
[Is that you, Ben Burch?]
I still cannot understand why some people want there to be no consequences for the people who carried out torture.
[So then you do support hunting down the Islamic terrorists?]
We have to come to grips with the idea that there are two Americas.
[One that feeds Gitmo prisoners orange glazed chicken and the other that screams in outrage about "torturing" them with that food.]
For each individual tortured, the horror is exactly the same.
[Torture by overfeeding is just as horrible as torture by air conditioning.]
With Rahm's announcement this morning, Obama and The Democrats now OWN the War Crimes of the last administration.
[They too are guilty of prisoner cell climate control War Crimes.]
By not prosecuting these war criminals, U.S. elected officials will prove to the world that they are despicable hypocrites.
[Let's hunt down those war criminals who tortured with insects.]
I'm f*cking done with Obama. I'm done with all of this shit.
There's no f*cking point. HE LIED TO US.
[Millions of horny guys lie all the time when they tell their dates they just want to give them a nice massage. Ever think of that?]
I'm very disappointed in the Obama administration over this. I knew that he would be governing from the middle of the political spectrum but that he would still prosecute these guys.
[Maybe he didn't want to see the case laughed out of court.]
I want a recount!
[With or without the votes conjured by ACORN?]
posted by PJ-Comix at 6:41 AM
31 Comments:
The unintended consequence of all the torture furor, as well as some unjust persecution of our own special operators for quite reasonable actions, is that field forces are now just trying to kill the opposition and accept a lot more collateral casualties among the target's near relations as the price of taking them out, rather than trying to capture and interrogate. Which is fine with me; lay down with dogs, get flea-bombed along with them.
LOL, I like that.. Flea-bombed.. ROLFLMAO..
PJ said it though. The fact that the left hasn't uttered a single peep about islamic torture, or ANY torture for that matter other than what they've conjured up in the minds of morons worldwide about gitmo, clearly shows their agenda for what it is.
Anti-American, Anti-freedom, Anti-liberty, Anti-everything this nation was, is and will be in the future. Plain and simple.
[When you get all upset about torture by caterpillar, it's not really hard to marginalize you.]I'm REALLY upset about them torturing that poor caterpillar! Imagine being stuck in a box with one of those scumbags!
[Gitmo guard Big Bob has a very special meat sandwich for you to chew on while pondering that thought.]Someone's been watching Harold and Kumar. ;)
wondering if being forced to listen to Meghan McCain's annoying Valley Girl voice would constitute torture...(PJ)
I'd rather be waterboarded then listen to baby RINO tell us how to be Conservative. Can I get some orange glazed chicken after??
Obama has set himself up as the main AlQuaeda recruiting officer.
By showing his weakness, Obama has invited muslim youth into the terror movement since there no longer appears to be serious consequences to them.
Obama has extended this war on terror by an entire generation.
"I will NEVER understand how any Jewish descendant, such as Rahm Emanuel, can turn away from this Gitmo torture evidence."
Could it be that the men who were "tortured" would have hunted down men like Rahm and beheaded them without remorse, while their friends and family rejoiced, if those men would have been allowed to continue on their chosen course of the extermination of the Jews (you know, the ones Mohammad called the decedents of dogs and pigs)? No, that couldn't be it, could it?
Could it be that Ramh actually understands the nature of the beast called terrorism that we're fighting and that the terrorist are the ones who REALLY torture people, and that they do it for fun? No, that couldn't be it, could it?
Could it be that Rahm understands that the terrorists has some VERY unpleasant things (like actual torture) awaiting us all if they succeed in their goal of global domination? No, that couldn't b it, could it?
Could it be that Rahm understands that what was done to those terrorists isn't even CLOSE to what REAL torture is, torture that is committed by a lot of the same people we used to put in Gitmo? No, that couldn't be it, could it?
No, Rahm and Obama are all part of a Rovian Plan to Dominate the World and they're just a part of Bushitler's War on Humanity. Isn't that right, DUmmies?
Too bad the One just flip-flopped and sent his minions Rahm and others into apoplectic paroxysms today. Anything to keep the Bush-bashers and Soros-fed hordes off his back.
What a putz!
DUmmies Outraged Over No "Torture" Trials P Jinc
We were.
Didn't Obama just say he is leaving it to the DOJ and Congress? The answer is yes. A major shift, I admit.
I, troglaman, think this is actually a defining moment if it holds true. These investigations, if done, could become incendiary. Not only because of the investigation itself, but because of what it will uncover.
The law's the law. What we'll all have to face, sometime or another, is that we broke it. That part's easy.
What's next is if we want to remake the law.
What would some of you jackasses suggest doing? Where do you draw the line?
Oh yeah. I forgot. Situational ethics. You can never draw the line because it's always shifting. Do I have that right, CL?
No you don't have that right, t-man. I do not adhere to situational ethics, I adhere to the ethics of rational egoism. They include: Rationalism, Honesty, Independence, Justice, Integrity, Productiveness, and Pride.
O'Bama has no ethic, no philosophy, and no goal other than self-glorification and holding himself out as the "anti-Bush" and morally superior to the United States he represents. He goes to Europe and does nothing but recite what "evils" the US has perpetrated on the world to portray himself as the savior and champion of some unspecified higher morality.
As I stated earlier, he first sends his minions out with the message: "nobody will be prosecuted for what was done to the terrorists, we look to the future" then after the looney left goes ballistic promptly flip-flops and says: "It's possible those who gave their opinions will be prosecuted for giving those opinions" which immediately inspires douchebags in Congress to start planning for "Truth Commissions" mock trials, political posturing, pandering and preening to cameras and the loonies.
The guy has no concept of the future or how his actions impact it. He's all about the present and blaming others for the past. He's a rookie putz and totally irrational.
"These investigations, if done, could become incendiary. "
Yes indeed they could: they will torch whatever professionalism, dedication to truth and protection American interests and civilians is left in our intelligence community. It will cultivate an even more CYA imperative in those folks. You certainly remember the Church Commission and Iran-Contra investigations, don't you?
We should announce as national policy that we will pull out fingernails, use a modern version of the rack, burn, cut, slice and dice and feed to dogs anyone found to be engaged in violence against American interests or citizens.
The Left claims allegations of torture were a recruiting tool for AQ and other terrorist organizations: what a disincentive the prospect of certain, swift and merciless real torture and death will have for someone thinking about joining terrorists and religious zealots.
Remember Justice, trog. No man should be denied the consequence of his actions, be they good or evil.
"...I adhere to the ethics of rational egoism. They include:..."
To clarify that:
I adhere to ethics based on striving for perfect practice of the virtues of rational egoism. Those virtues include:...
"I adhere to the ethics of rational egoism." CL
"rational egoism is the principle that an action is rational if and only if it maximizes one's self-interest." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_egoism
"We should announce as national policy that we will pull out fingernails, use a modern version of the rack, burn, cut, slice and dice and feed to dogs anyone found to be engaged in violence against American interests or citizens." CL
The use of 'we' pretty much destroys your rational egoism argument. Why? Because it makes it collective. Egoism is, by definition, not collective. You can say 'I', or 'You' but you cannot use 'We' or 'Our'. If you think 'we' should be self interested, then anyone gathering around your campfire isn't self interested. They're sheep.
"We should announce as national policy..." cannot be a rational egoist point of view.
I love Classic because he drills down to what I, troglaman, think is the essential cognitive dissonance embodied by you dumbshit dimwits. You just make shit up.
Classic thinks rational egoists should pull together and announce a national policy thereby sacrificing their rational egoist credentials. In fact, if the egoists pull together in "their self interest", they will, by definition, be practicing altruism. They'll be helping each other out. I thought that was a no-no.
You are so fucking full of shit Classic. Keep it up.
"Remember Justice, trog. No man should be denied the consequence of his actions, be they good or evil." CL
You got that right.
<< I love Classic because he drills down to what I, troglaman, think is the essential cognitive dissonance embodied by you dumbshit dimwits. >>
It's only "cognitive dissonance" to you because you don't comprehend what he's saying.
Go back to recess.
It isn't that he doesn't comprehend what I'm saying Kirk, it's because trog is playing a linguistic analytic game to create a false cognitive dissonance as the basis for his ad-hominem attack.
Substitute the entity "United States" where I used the term "we" and you have no problem.
"...In fact, if the egoists pull together in "their self interest", they will, by definition, be practicing altruism...."
That is another untrue statement and mis-characterization. Altruism by definition requires "sacrifice" i.e., a loss of value to the actor for the benefit of another.
Rational egoists act on self-interest. There is no "cognitive dissonance" to the idea that two or more rational egoists can perform self-interested actions that result in mutual gain of value, i.e., "common good." Thus the basic principle behind Smith's "invisible hand" argument, trog, although I would claim Smith's argument was an attempt to appease altruists rather than an statement of the basic Justice of Capitalism.
Read this one, trog.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_Ethics
"It isn't that he doesn't comprehend what I'm saying Kirk, it's because trog is playing a linguistic analytic game to create a false cognitive dissonance as the basis for his ad-hominem attack." Classic (Trog's a fucking linguistic genius) Liberal
I love you too, man. But could someone explain, for starters, what a "linguistic analytic game" is? I have to admit it sounds good. But after thinking about it for about 5 seconds, it becomes the ravings of a madman. Yes, I said it, CL. A madman.
"(Kirk), substitute the entity "United States" where I used the term "we" and you have no problem." CL
Sure. No problem.
Listen Kirk. CL's a self-declared rational egoist. Let me remind you of their orientation:
"rational egoism is the principle that an action is rational if and only if it maximizes one's self-interest."
Which pretty much makes it clear anything goes. And you fuckers are afraid of the gays, which sorta makes you more gay.
CL's actually hoping you'll lap up his phony call for unity. It would be in his self interest which is ,after all, what he serves. And proudly admits it.
Swallow or not, Kirk.
Did you read the article on virtue ethics trog? If you knew what you were talking about it would be clear that NOT anything goes.
"rational egoism is the principle that an action is rational if and only if it maximizes one's self-interest."
Do you dispute that fact, trog? Or do you hold that an action is rational if and only if it minimizes one's self-interest?
I think we can agree that Mr. Johnson's opinion doesn't merit consideration based on his earlier post praising Tim McVeigh as "brilliant but sloppy," thus revealing his rationality as, shall we say, underdeveloped?
"But could someone explain, for starters, what a "linguistic analytic game" is?"
I'll get back to you with a better phrase than "linguistic analysis" as I agree it is a concept I formed prior to finding a more evocative or precise terminology for it. For now, I'll just say that what I mean by the phrase is: a perversion or purposeful confusion of the meaning of a concept by selecting certain definitions of the words used to evoke the concept.
It is a game you play where you drop the context of a concept in order to make a point whereby you can ridicule the original concept or statement. An example is above where you write: "The use of 'we' pretty much destroys your rational egoism argument. Why? Because it makes it collective."
What is the dropped context? The concept of a society as an entity. A society is regarded and referred to as an entity even though it is a collection of individuals.
Just as we refer to the collection of states (individual entities) as "The United States" (an individual nation amongst the nations of the planet), I used the term "we" in the context of the entity "The United States."
"rational egoism is the principle that an action is rational if and only if it maximizes one's self-interest." Do you dispute that fact, trog?" CL
No. But it's a narcissistic viewpoint. It's suspiciously selfish. If I were a cop, and you were my partner, I'd have severe doubts that my survival during a gun-fight would serve your self-interest.
Now if you want to venture into the "my death would serve my self-interest" territory, I'd be happy to go there. Because any foray into that world means sacrifice. Another altruistic behavior. That's a no-no.
"For now, I'll just say that what I mean by the phrase is: a perversion or purposeful confusion of the meaning of a concept by selecting certain definitions of the words used to evoke the concept." CL
You work too hard, CL. Just quote whatever statement you deem as bullshit and go from there. Refute.
You get too tied up in what you think are motivations which are instantly stupid. Not that I don't dip into the stupidity pond on occasion. But facts are facts. I try to pay attention to telling the truth. And I can usually back myself up.
So I invite you to do what it is you think I'm doing to you, to me. Let's see if you can get "a perversion or purposeful confusion of the meaning of a concept" past the old trogster. Because I have been perverting and confusing you dumbasses for fucking ever. Mostly with the truth. Show me where I'm wrong. Anytime. I'll admit it. There's my motive.
What's fun is you're usually wrong about fucking everything. You're not alone. Fish in a barrel.
""my death would serve my self-interest", I'd be happy to go there. Because any foray into that world means sacrifice."
Not necessarily. Consider someone suffering from a painful, terminal disease. Wouldn't suicide be in their self-interest? How would be ending my suffering be a sacrifice?
By the way, I don't consider deferring self-interest, or acting for the benefit of someone I love as sacrifice even though that may involve some material loss, possibly including the loss of my life.
Most all of the issues I take with you are with what I consider your bullshit. Even your last statement is equivocal. If I'm wrong about everything, why do you say I'm "usually" wrong?
Go from there, trog. :)
"Most all of the issues I take with you are with what I consider your bullshit. Even your last statement is equivocal. If I'm wrong about everything, why do you say I'm "usually" wrong? Go from there, trog. :)" CL
Well...um...I did admit dipping into the stupidity pond on occasion.
Takes me days to recover.
"By the way, I don't consider deferring self-interest, or acting for the benefit of someone I love as sacrifice even though that may involve some material loss, possibly including the loss of my life." CL
Altruistic alert!!!
"Altruistic alert!!!"
Again with your word games!
Altruism is defined as a loss of value to the actor. Deferring self-interest, or acting for the benefit of someone you value highly does not fit that definition.
e.g., not buying that BMW 7 series so that your kid can go to college without taking on a lot of debt.
e.g., jumping into a raging river in an attempt to save your drowning wife, the loss of whom would be an immense loss of love and happiness in your life.
Neither of these is an action one sees as an overall loss of value.
"Altruism is defined as a loss of value to the actor." CL
Nope.
1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/altruism
You can try to fit that into "as a loss of value to the actor" but I don't buy it.
Listen, CL. You said it was a fault of Americans that they're altruistic. You said it. And then you went on to say "I don't consider deferring self-interest, or acting for the benefit of someone I love as sacrifice". And then you went on to say "Altruism is defined as a loss..."
I have to admit I respect your gymnastics. I'll give it a 7.
I admit I jumped from the definition of the word to the effect of the action. I'll spell it out so you can follow.
Value is what one seeks to gain and preserve. Doing so benefits the actor. Acting for the benefit of one who is of great value to the actor's life and happiness benefits both the actor and the one he acts for. The question is one of value -- which is of more value to the actor, the benefit or the beneficiary?
It is a fault of most humans that they're brainwashed to see altruism as good and virtuous, because it is anti-rational. Specifically, the idea that acting to one's own detriment is "good." It comes from the parasitic and mystical source of religious belief.
I'm in good company in my criticism of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_(ethics)#Criticism_of_the_doctrine
"I admit I jumped from the definition of the word to the effect of the action." CL
So is the "effect of the (altuistic) action" good or bad?
Stop being so squirrely.
Should one consider the overall societal benefits about pulling someone out of a burning building before they do it? Or is it the natural instinct to do so that's so fucked up?
Just what exactly is your problem with people helping each other out?
I have no problem with people voluntarily helping out those who are meaningful and valuable to their lives. I do not have a problem with voluntary benevolence either (e.g., pulling someone out of a burning building).
I do have a problem with government forcing people to help out those who will not help themselves. I have a major problem with the government forcing everyone to work a certain percentage of their TIME for the benefit of others via the tax system. Taxation makes everyone slaves of the government and makes peoples' TIME property of the government. That is morally unjust!
I've explained all this innumerable times here trog.
What makes you keep ignoring those statements other than mule-headedness and irrational devotion to the doublethink of socialism and the suicidal religion of altruism? You must be an Existentialist who believes life is meaningless and absurd.
Post a Comment
<< Home